I disagree. One test is just a single datapoint, it isn't worth much until you get more datapoints that corroborate your findings. This is why many experts were skeptical of the tests when CERN thought they observed neutrinos moving faster than the speed of light, and now that test has been disproved.

Has it actually been disproved yet? I remember a while ago there were a couple articles posted around reddit that said "CERN results disproved" and whatnot, but then the actual articles didn't disprove anything, they just quoted scientists giving a list of possible errors that could have produced those results, but none of them had been tested yet.

As far as I know equipment is still being prepared to perform similar tests at other labs around the world, so in retrospect "disproved" was a poor choice of words. The current state of things as far as I'm aware is that the Cern team found a loose cable between the GPS unit used to time the departure of the neutrinos and the computer making measurements, and when this cable was tightened the neutrinos were measured to move very close to the speed of light but not faster. To me this is very convincing, but once other teams announce their findings there will be much more certainty one way or the other. It is of course possible the findings are correct and the neutrinos did in fact move faster than the speed of light, but more evidence will be needed before most physicists are convinced.

There is a fundamental difference between an experiment and a statistical study, both of which have tests, but in one case a single repeatable test is valid and in the other case many tests are needed.

Also, people who point out small semantics like that are irritating.ಠ_ಠ

Agreed, a statistical study is, in general, more reliable than a single experimental result, but even that is not incredibly convincing depending on the size and source(s) of the data set.

Also, the quote uses the term "test result," which is incredibly vague, and to a layman it is not obvious at all what he is referring to, so it is not a minor semantic argument I'm making. I understand the point they are trying to make, but this is a poor quote to use, that is all I'm saying.

Actually, he wasn't a very nice person at all according to my grandfather; he worked with von Braun for some time and always told me of how often he screamed at people who didn't work hard, fast, or good enough.

This is supposed to be a funny, sarcastic quip, not a philosophical musing. And von Braun, even if he was a bad guy, was Lutheran. Take a quote vaguely related to testing things and use it to get karma from the predictable hive mind? Pretty much. I didn't realize supposedly rational people could be so stupid.

I jsut stole this and put it on my facebook for all of the people in my lab program. i thought its relevant not only to my lack of organized religion (all others in the group are Christians, i'm not a total douche and won't fight them unless they post pure ignorance.), but to what we in the laboratory do.

Disagree. There are untold problems caused by poorly thought-out tests. Education in the US right now is a prime example. Far too many people seem to assume that if you can test something, it must work regardless of checking whether the tests make sense or are testing what people think they're testing.

"Nature does not know extinction; all it knows is transformation. Everything science has taught me, and continues to teach me, strengthens my belief in the continuity of our spiritual existence after death."